give notice. the notice of this, the issuance of this notice is unrelated to when the tenant moves out. in many cases when the tenant is eligible ora loud to stay in the unit for additional a year beyond that, but the notice, we look at when the notice was first served upon the tenant rather than when the tenant actually leaves the unit. is that your interpretation or is that exactly how it's written into the ordinance? because i mean, the eviction was recorded in 2005. the notice was given on november 4th of 2004. it's only a couple of days before when the ordinance going into effect. so does it specifically outline

that that is the point at which we decide whether the eviction pertains to condominium conversion or not? >> john from the city attorneys office. i guess while technically there might be some ability to interpret this language this notice to the board when the tenant is given notice to vacate. it is true in this particular case, these notices were served probably within days of the november 16th, 2004, cutoff. i believe there is a circulation where one of the tenants was elderly

and continued to reside for a year beyond that time. but this refers to the issuance of the notice. i will say i think as i recall because i worked on this back in 2004, before it was adopted. i think the november 16th date was a day where the piece of legislation was being heard at the board of supervisors and the amendment was made and to give everyone notice they created that date whiches the hearing date which was the land use committee or full board. >> i think it's important to have some clarity if this is an interpretation of that ordinance and at is date that we choose. there is a number of buildings i'm sure that we are considering for the bypass that may or may not interpret this ordinance be eligible for

condominium conversion bypass. i have a lot of questions particularly if it's somewhat clear that they quickly tried to give notice of eviction before the november 16, 2004, date. whether we should be an allowing this sort of bypass for those types of actions. i think it's separate from the appeal before us today. but i think it raises a question on how the dpw is going through our bypass list and determining who is eligible or not. i think there needs to be a conversion, i think there needs to be a discussion and especially on interpretation i think there are advocates that may want to challenge that date. >> supervisor campos? >> i guess i appreciate

supervisor kim's question. i would ask the city attorney the question differently. is there a reasonable argument here that the controlling date is in fact a later date in this case? is that a reasonable? is that a reasonable argument to be made that it's the case here? >> john from the city attorneys office. it's a difficult question to respond to in light of for example supervisor kim acknowledging that there might be tenant groups that might want to challenge the interpretation. i would be reluctant as a legal matter to support that interpretation. the language is pretty clear to

me that it's issuance of a notice and it doesn't pertain, it doesn't talk about when the tenant is evicted. it doesn't talk about the tenant at all in the definition. so i do think it's reasonable to take the position that it's this particular notice of termination. >> i understand that, but the fact that you are not willing to say that it's reasonable to take the other position or it's unreasonable to take the other position is troubling actually. and sort of makes it seem like in fact you could have a number of different and yet reasonable interpretations which means that your interpretation could be the right one, it could also be the wrong one. so that is not, doesn't really give a lot of reassurance to what we are

talking about here. that's the problem. >> john from the city attorneys office. as you know, as an attorney and we deal with this in the city attorneys office all the time. when you look at legislation and every word is not crystal clear. wilhelm wundt -- one of the first things you do is look at the rules of the statutory interpretation and you look at the overall laws that are on the books and the words that are used and if that language is clear and unambiguous, then you don't dig further than that. although certainly people could argue that you can do that. i think this language is clear about the issuance of a notice. >> thank you. colleagues, any final questions to city staff? okay. at this time let me ask?

>> supervisor tang? >> i just have one more question to process. maybe john gibner. if the board decides to approve the waiver or reduction, i just want to know what the following process would be if the process i will move forward if the appellant had paid the fee and no. 2, who is the body as to the waiver and reduction. >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. if the board decides to wave or reduce the fee, that would be a determination that the board would make based on findings that the nexus study does not apply or does not stand up in this case. the board would today articulate some findings to that effect to

me and the clerks office. we would prepare and additional motion for next week's meeting or the subsequent meeting laying out the board's findings to support the waiver or reduction. the board would also today determine whether to wave the fee entirely or reduce it and the amount to reduce it and again, that determination, the amount of the fee whether it's $8,000 or 0 would be a nexus determination by the board. >> thank you, colleagues, any final questions to city staff? all right. seeing none. why don't we go to if there are any members of the public who support the application to wave the fee. seeing none. we have

the appellant who would like to provide a rebuttal? >> i'm not sure about whether any person would be evicted from their and whether that affect our condominium conversion or not. i have been a social activist for the past 8 years working with different human organizations and the last thing i want to hear that someone was evicted from my house and now i'm taking over. as the gentleman said people with aids might have been evicted from that area. or people with needs like us, people with aids, people of color, low income people. i'm

trying to point across, my point is that we are basically a disadvantaged group, all of these groups that have been mentioned here legally disadvantaged. financially, in a very precarious situation. i am constantly every month, almost every week. the fact that i own a home doesn't mean that i'm rich. whatsoever. you can look at my bank statements. i own a home like i said because i won a settlement and thankfully i'm able to have a roof over my head in this wheelchair. i'm just hoping that i, i don't know about the nexus and where i can repeal there is something about that and hire and person that would help me understand it and come to you guys with the perfect statement. i'm just telling you my story and the story maybe of a lot of other people. i'm just

hoping to tell a story that might be the first one that comes to you or i'm sure there is going to be other people like this, i'm sure there are other people like me out there. so i'm trying to appeal to the progressive group of people to a group of people that have been protesting out there for other people's rights before. as an ally, i'm just hoping that you guys will hear me from your hearts and not think that i'm taking advantage of the condominium conversion and not using that money because there is a lot of fees to pay. inspectors that will come and in order to convert we have to commit to those codes. all right. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, any final questions to the appellant or

city staff on these issues? >> seeing none. at this time this hearing has been held and is closed. colleagues, this matter is in the hands of the board. are there any motions? >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you mr. president, thank you to all the city staff, the appellant and everyone who has testified today. this is a hard issue in a lot of ways i know this being the first out of the gate. i know it's awkward to work our way through it. you know, in reading the ordinance, i would say it's not crystal clear to me that there is only one interpretation of this ordinance as much as i know someone indicated. i think this

is a rather unique situation where we have someone who i think if above the poverty line is just barely above the poverty line making somewhere $15,000 a year living on disability without any real prospects of having a career that at least so far as we've been told that would significantly increase that income, someone who relies on hsf for basic home care. in terms of the reasonable relationship between, i'm just pulling it up here, between impact of this conversion and the fee, i don't see it. and i think we've talked about a number of the issues, for example, that the nexus study

refers to the option for the people who can't afford the fee to remain in the lottery, that option is not there whatever the amendments happened to the legislation. i think to me to impose this fee on this applicant does not meet the goals around affordable housing given the circumstances presented here. so as a result, i would like to make a motion to move item 46 and to table items 47 and 48. >> supervisor wiener has made a motion ascribed, is there a second to that motion? >> supervisor, if the board adopts item 46, the motion approving a waiver -- >> it would be moving items 46

and 48 and tabling item 47. my apology. that's the motion. >> we have a motion by supervisor ferrel, president chiu. >> thank you colleagues. like supervisor wiener we all have sympathy for the appellant. this is challenging and something we've all thought about. that being said, i want to reiterate what the secretary of standard for this appeal is we can consider a fee waiver if it's not going to affect the impact of the development and the fee charges. in other words if we were to find an instance in this situation which is the first of four appeals that are coming down the pike on this issue, that there is not a relationship or nexus, i think we are setting ourselves up for

a very challenging standard in the future. that i'm concerned could undermine the entire program that we had legislated some months go. as the deputy city attorney indicated we can't just wave this on hardship. because of that, i unfortunately will not be supporting supervisor wiener's motion for that reason. i do hope there are other ways for us to address this. i know supervisor avalos and kimberly asked if there was other ways to assist this $8,000 fee on a $1.8 million property which is owned by the appellant today. i think it's important to set our

standard as the deputy city attorney has played laid -- laid out. >> supervisor breed. >> i too am concerned about the precedent that this sets. i usually want to support the supervisor of the district in this matter but this is the first time we are hearing an issue in regards to condominium conversion and it sets a bad precedent in future appeals on this program an how it was crafted in terms of it's legislation was done so that it could assist those who are in situations where they are linked to other tic owners and in situations of hardship. from my understanding selling or converting is an optional thing. so i don't understand the situation around the hardship of what this would mean if there is hardship and

the money doesn't exist to convert. you have the option to remain a tic. however if you convert, you get a lower interest rate, there is dollars in your pocket. you get an increase in the value of your property and the equity. i just have a problem with making amendments of this nature when the opportunity for deferring the fee exist for this purpose. so i can't unfortunately support what's on the table at this time and i wish the appellant the very best. but i just think we as a board need to set the tone of what this program was meant to do at this time and this is not sending the right message. thank you. >> supervisor kim? >> i'm going to concur with the previous two comments made by president chiu and supervisor breed. the question is whether

there is an argument on the nexus that was made which was pitted off the condominium conversion ordinance back in june. i think it was a very delicate balance. a lot of different interest which i will not rehash today of many of our low income and middle class tenants and middle income home owners and settling the housing stock and tic conversion to condominiums has on as a whole. i think there are real -- impacts from the condominium conversion here in the city and i think the fees are appropriate. that being said, i'm very sympathetic to our appellant at hand. i think the issues that she brings up are

with many owners, knotted just -- not just tic home owners. what we can do to support these home owners to continue to be home owners i think that is the actual issue at hand and not the fee waiver or reduction in order to be eligible for the bypass. i think there are benefits by participate nth -- in the bypass that are immediate to the reduction of the interest rate and even if the home owners state that they will never sell this unit there is nothing that will bar them from doing so. i think for a number of reasons i can't

support the motion at hand today. i would like greater discussion to determine what options there might be in ways to support home owners that are on a fixed income and want to continue to be home owners in the city. i think that's an issue that a lot of home owners are dealing with. and the date of whether ellis act evictions impacts your ability to buy pass this conversion. the lottery system. i have a question about the date we interpret as being the date. i understand the city attorneys argument and i understand the difficult position, but the city is interpreting this. but i have real issues with landlords taking advantage of the fact that they know an ordinance is coming down and giving a notice of eviction only 12 days before the ordinance goes into effect and

rewarding those property owners evicting another senior disabled resident in our city. i don't want to tribute that to the current tic owners. what is really frustrating to me about this whole tic conversation is that so many people purchase these units and not realizing what they had done and who they evicted to that ownership in the present. that is most frustrating aspects of the tic ownership which is why identify -- i have a lot of issues because i think of the history of what allows it to be available which is a lot of evictions in our city and i continue to see it today even without the hope of condominium conversion, we continue to see property owners ellis act continue to sell tic units in the market and many who are vulnerable residenting and seniors and disabled residents

with no place to go. the last thing, this whole appeal process is new to us and i they we have a couple more coming down the line. i feel very uncomfortable with the nature on how we do heals the these appeals. we have to inquire about the personal financial aspect of the appellants. i feel uncomfortable putting them in front of tv for the public. and wondering if there is some flexibility in terms of how these appeals are handled. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president i'm not going repeat most of what's been said. the reality is that we have a very sympathetic appellant and i think that all of us here have been touched by

the story and certainly want to help. and the question for me is what's the best way to help. unfortunately, we are working in the connections of -- context of a legal way, i think there is a way to help. the hardship that is demonstrated i think it's possible to overcome because there are benefits to condominium conversion and i would hope that irrespective of what happens with this appeal that the mayor's office of housing continues to work with the appellant to figure out how we can insist if it is the need the case that this appeal is denied with maybe refinancing and ways which we can also perhaps look at even city funds to help folks who find themselves in similar situation. i don't believe that the answer is to go down a path

that could really unravel the entirety of the system we created and so, unfortunately i don't think the legal standard has been met. but i do hope that independent of that, that we also do what we can do help this individual and i think others in similar positions. thank you. >> thank you, colleagues, any additional discussion? madam clerk can you call the roll on supervisor wieners motion. >> the clerk: item 46 indicates whether it's a waiver or reduction of the fee. which one? a waiver. >> on the motion to approve item 46, table 47 and item 48. wiener aye. wean avalos no,

campos no, chiu no, supervisor cohen, no, ferrel aye, supervisor kim, no, mar no, >> motion fails. there are two ayes and 9 nos. >> motion fails. >> i will make a motion to table 46 and 48. >> so i have just been advised if you want to make an opposite motion that we rescind the vote and we offer your follow up motion. >> so i will make a motion to rescind the vote.

>> colleagues can we take that without objection? >> motion is to table items 46 and 48 and to move forward with item 47. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to a affirm the condominium, is there a motion and second. can we take a roll call vote taken >> supervisor wiener, no, supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos aye, breed aye, campos aye, chiu aye, supervisor cohen, aye, ferrel no, tang aye, >> there are 9 ayes and 2 nos.

>> thank you. why don't we go back to our unfinished business of the day and go to item 43. >> the clerk: sf >> i would like to table item 43. he's not able to be here. i move to continue item 43 >> supervisor wiener has made a motion to continue this meeting for next week. any discussion? colleagues, this item will be continued to tuesday. madam clerk what is the date?

november 5, 2013. it is my intention to call that item as early as possible in the meeting. unless there is any discussion, this item will be continued to that date. why don't we call item 44. did we call that before? >> we are on public comment, mr. president. >> okay, why don't we go to general public comment. >> the clerk: at this time the general public may comment on the items on the adoption without reference to committee calendar. public comment:at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. when the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the board must be exercised during the public comment portion of the calendar. each member of the public may address the board

for up to 3 minutes. if it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the president may continue public comment to another time during the meeting. 12341234a let's >> let's hear from the first speaker. each speaker will have 2 minutes. >> good afternoon, members, don't accept money from the friends of the library. what must be understood that is coming into city hall is coming into belly of the beast. everything in city hall is ripping off those public assets and corporate interest. as private citizens there are barriers to keep us from learning the truth and barriers to keep us out of city hall and barriers to speaking. you don't see it on camera, the supervisors have no reservation about showing their contempt while we are talking. the virtue of democracy depends on empowering the vigil